Casata Limited v Minister for Land Information - [2024] NZCA 592
Date of Judgment
14 November 2024
Decision
Casata Limited v Minister for Land Information (PDF 372 KB)
Summary
Public works - Compensation - Compulsory acquisition of land - Shadow period
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant must pay the respondent costs for a complex appeal on a band A basis together with usual disbursements. We do not award costs in respect of second counsel.
The appellant, Casata Ltd (Casata), contends that the shadow cast by the announcement of a roading project between the Hutt Valley and Tawa/Porirua, the Petone-Link Road (the Project), cost it the opportunity to sell or redevelop two properties located at Pita-One Road in Petone (referred to as No 7 and No 27, or together as the properties). Some three years later, the properties were acquired under the Act for the purposes of the Project. The parties were able to agree on the land value of both properties, but unable to agree on Casata's claim for additional compensation referenced to the effects of the shadow.
Casata's claim for additional compensation in the sum of $4,232,627 (plus GST if any) was rejected by the Land Valuation Tribunal (the LVT). Casata's appeal to the High Court was dismissed by Edwards J. The Judge subsequently granted an application by Casata for leave to appeal to this Court under s 18A of the Land Valuation Proceedings Act 1948. Casata appealed to this Court. The principal issue raised is whether the landowner can claim compensation for loss attributable to the inhibiting effect of the proposed acquisition during the "shadow period" - the time between the announcement of the proposed public work for which the land is to be acquired and completion of the acquisition.
Issue 1: Is the loss alleged to have arisen during the shadow period compensable under s 60(1)(c) of the Public Works Act 1981? Held: No.
There are two defects with the appellant's argument. First, the statutory entitlement to compensation in s 60(1)(c) requires the identification of a relevant statutory power, the exercise of which has given rise to damage. It is only where the exercise of such a power has caused land to suffer damage that compensation is payable for that damage. The appellant did not identify a statutory power. Second, the natural and ordinary meaning of the phrase "any land ... [s]uffers any damage" as it appears in s 60(1)(c) requires physical interference with the land: that is, something that affects the land itself. There was no such damage in this case. It is difficult to see how loss caused by damage to Casata's property rights during the shadow period could be compensable other than in relation to the value of the land.
Issue 2: Is the loss alleged to have arisen during the shadow period compensable under s 66 of the Public Works Act 1981? Held: No
The loss alleged to be caused by the shadow essentially goes to value. As such, it cannot fall within s 66, as the claim advanced is one for disturbance to land.
The appeal is dismissed.
The appellant must pay the respondent costs for a complex appeal on a band A basis together with usual disbursements. We do not award costs in respect of second counsel.
The appellant, Casata Ltd (Casata), contends that the shadow cast by the announcement of a roading project between the Hutt Valley and Tawa/Porirua, the Petone-Link Road (the Project), cost it the opportunity to sell or redevelop two properties located at Pita-One Road in Petone (referred to as No 7 and No 27, or together as the properties). Some three years later, the properties were acquired under the Act for the purposes of the Project. The parties were able to agree on the land value of both properties, but unable to agree on Casata's claim for additional compensation referenced to the effects of the shadow.
Casata's claim for additional compensation in the sum of $4,232,627 (plus GST if any) was rejected by the Land Valuation Tribunal (the LVT). Casata's appeal to the High Court was dismissed by Edwards J. The Judge subsequently granted an application by Casata for leave to appeal to this Court under s 18A of the Land Valuation Proceedings Act 1948. Casata appealed to this Court. The principal issue raised is whether the landowner can claim compensation for loss attributable to the inhibiting effect of the proposed acquisition during the "shadow period" - the time between the announcement of the proposed public work for which the land is to be acquired and completion of the acquisition.
Issue 1: Is the loss alleged to have arisen during the shadow period compensable under s 60(1)(c) of the Public Works Act 1981? Held: No.
There are two defects with the appellant's argument. First, the statutory entitlement to compensation in s 60(1)(c) requires the identification of a relevant statutory power, the exercise of which has given rise to damage. It is only where the exercise of such a power has caused land to suffer damage that compensation is payable for that damage. The appellant did not identify a statutory power. Second, the natural and ordinary meaning of the phrase "any land ... [s]uffers any damage" as it appears in s 60(1)(c) requires physical interference with the land: that is, something that affects the land itself. There was no such damage in this case. It is difficult to see how loss caused by damage to Casata's property rights during the shadow period could be compensable other than in relation to the value of the land.
Issue 2: Is the loss alleged to have arisen during the shadow period compensable under s 66 of the Public Works Act 1981? Held: No
The loss alleged to be caused by the shadow essentially goes to value. As such, it cannot fall within s 66, as the claim advanced is one for disturbance to land.